The cost basis in the asset is not the house: Your home is the collateral you’re granted a security interest to a note holder upon recording confirmation. The basis in the asset is the face value of the note – got It?
At settlement you allowed the lender its encumbrance that provides the beneficiary an interest in the estates title. Bare and legal is presumptive and not enforceable in advance of a default.
If you believe the presumption you granted title to a lender in advance of a default then lose your home and go peacefully. Pretender lender and Robo the Hobo, Pretender Lender and ….. Let it go!
Look, law makers are woefully incorrect to believe title is granted in a non judicial state. If that were the case —EVERY LOAN at originated would trigger a taxable event. Get back to basics in a defense if you’re to succeed. Unfortunately, Now I believe every mortgage loan originated in a non judicial jurisdiction for “POS” power of sale shall invoke a tax payer’s right to record the loan origination as a taxable event. The IRC is convinced these deal structures and transactions constitute a lease and common securities vehicle that survives state law as a sale lease back and REPO.
Washington, Oregon California Arizona and Rhode Island are a few examples of this traditionally unfriendly jurisdiction for a lender to recover by under a Purchase and Sale lease back or what we called a reverse REPO.
The REPO feature ignites a garden variety of restraints the court has long held a combatant to a common law creed of Life Liberty and the pursuit of a lenders right to ALWAYS be repaid. Therein is an obvious counter claims for inalienable rights of the debtor and structure which clearly gives merit for avoiding anything binding if its real intent was executory and shown made as a conditional sale.
It is puzzling to see the securities registration is still undecipherable or just too hard to understand. Lawyers and the courts are ….I mean …wow…it’s not that hard to grasp guys. If applied to some simple principals and with least effort for understanding…you really can prevail.
No less the court’s have struggled with and through the entire gambit of claims; from the pejorative to well pleaded controversy. The plaintiff household shares in common the same fate – the common law courts discretion over institutional constructive trust and surrendering to a 12(b) 6 to dismiss. Herein it is household’s relentless desire to assert the most inaccurate and artificial, subjective and entirely misleading claims. Take this to heart; it’s not the oppositions fault either. The capital markets and overall sub prime sector are really good at working into structure layer upon layer of fortified defenses. Over the last 10 they have ripened into a near impermeable defense.
Now, can someone like the author really bring down Mers.Corp. . . . with what is not known? …Well …no; Of course not !
(we shall see)